Don't Kill the Bosses!

Escaping the Hierarchy Trap

Samuel A Culbert, John B Ullmen

• Publisher: Berrett-Koehler Publishers
• Year: 2001
• ISBN:
  9781609943363
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

The boss/subordinate relationship is an age-old problem cited in almost every management book and on-the-job survey as an area rife with dishonesty and inefficiency. All too often, subordinates spin the truth for those above while bosses fail to establish the conditions required for subordinates to tell it to them straight. The end result is warped communication, corrupt internal politics, illusionary teamwork, pass-the-buck accountability, and personal dispiriting-and the company is always the big loser. Don't Kill the Bosses! reveals the "trap" created when people fail to differentiate between the positives of hierarchical structure and the negatives of hierarchical relationships. Far from being opposed to hierarchy, the authors believe strongly that an accurate and cleanly defined organization chart is vital. But they show how to implement an alternative model of hierarchy: two-sided accountability. Drawing on case studies from their consulting practice, Culbert and Ullmen show how this new model leads to a freer flow of information, more creative problem-solving, and quicker response to changing conditions. Unlike other books that acknowledge boss/subordinate relationships as a systematic, continuing problem and offer skill development suggestions for dealing with it, Don't Kill the Bosses! tells how to think about the problem in a way that will enable readers to understand the steps they need to take to change things. It diagnoses what's missing in boss/subordinate relationships, connects what's wrong with them to personal and organizational outcomes, and defines the whole new mentality required to make them work successfully.

11

Recognizing the Hierarchy Trap

Whether we’re talking the boardroom at Procter & Gamble or the board of your PTA, you can count on hierarchy to screw things up. It’s a paradox. On one hand, hierarchy provides people a basic orientation—it defines accountability and who has to answer to whom. On the other hand, it perverts relationships, bleeding candor and quality from almost every discussion that’s held. As a feature of everyday work, hierarchy is a dimension people can’t do without, but one that causes them not to do very well.

There’s little question that hierarchy is the backbone of almost every well-functioning organization. It provides the architecture that structures a workforce. It designates authority, assigns responsibility, clarifies roles, and is a resource for settling jurisdictions and disputes. It is the primary mechanism for ensuring that work units set their compasses to corporate concerns and interact constructively with every group, even those units that appear uncooperative. Hierarchy causes people to be productive and efficient, keep their commitments, and stand accountable for errant actions. It authorizes leadership and insures respect for expertise. It specifies organizational purpose, stipulates functions, solidifies order, and provides control.

Hierarchy is part of growing up, learning the ropes, and being socialized. It’s internalized in the lessons people learn about deferring to rank and observing rules. Those at the top of a hierarchy are allowed to dominate—to require, specify, and judge. Those lower down are expected to knuckle under, justify their actions, and stand accountable for results. People are taught that breaking ranks by ignoring hierarchy readily leads to anarchy, chaos, disorganization, and cascading ineffectiveness. And all of this is hardwired in each individual’s thinking, even more so than what is specified in the books.

12

Every organization is layered with hierarchy; we’re hard pressed to imagine one that works well without it. Usually, hierarchy flows from the person who is highest on the organization chart and authorized to make decisions. It also emanates from those with expertise, prestige, and image. It’s even attributed on the basis of who is considered most socially and physically attractive. There’s hierarchy in having money and friends in influential places. In fact, it’s hard to think of any situation that doesn’t come with multiple hierarchical overlays.

Hierarchy is essential; there’s little doubt about that. Without it, work life would be likened to the Tower of Babel, for people would lack the means for reconciling divergent motives and differences in views. In fact, hierarchy is the chief mechanism for achieving corporate focus. Of course, one could always stop to take a vote, and some work groups operate that way. But once there’s a vote, without someone to exercise hierarchical authority, integrity, focus, and efficiency are lost.

Notwithstanding the omnipresence of hierarchy and the essential needs it serves, one must also recognize that hierarchy is a cancer that causes human systems to close down. It almost always limits truth telling, authenticity, openness, and give-and-take exchange. In fact, nothing is more hazardous to the spirit of teamwork than hierarchy. Nothing more quickly attacks feelings of camaraderie and self-esteem. Hierarchy blocks originality and causes people to place efficiency and uniformity ahead of functional effectiveness and actual results. In problem solving, hierarchy creates convergence at the very moment problem solvers most need to step “out of the box” to open themselves to possibilities never before entertained. In relationships, hierarchy produces status-dominated thinking, testing-the-waters double-talk, and constraints to people acting sensibly. Predictably, it leads to participation by the numbers, filtered information, cover-ups, alienation, disorientation, anger, and depression.

13

Hierarchy damages morale and worse—it’s dispiriting. Up, down, sideways, or diagonally, hierarchy obstructs, even negates, the possibility of straightforward, open and honest, candid conversations. In short, when it comes to relationships, hierarchy subtracts quality from every discussion and wisdom from the decisions determining the character of results.

HIERARCHY IS AN ORGANIZATION TRAP

The inability to differentiate between hierarchical structure and hierarchical relationships is precisely what makes hierarchy an organization trap. It needn’t be a trap, and wouldn’t be, if people realized the importance of making this distinction and had a way of keeping it in mind. As structure, hierarchy is the chain of command, the organization chart, and the road map that designates who is responsible for taking what action; who has the authority to make decisions and direct; and who is supposed to oversee and insist on corrective actions when specified results are not forthcoming. As structure, hierarchy is an organizational positive, providing the means for accountability and control.

But applied to relationships, hierarchy creates a negative dominance/subordination dynamic that works against an organization accomplishing its goals. Suddenly top-down, power-differentiated thinking appears in every interaction, and daily events take on a command-and-control demeanor in which people with more rank act as if they have the authority to require that people with less rank see and do things a certain way, regardless of individual predisposition. And as any parent with a teenager knows, a person not disposed to act as directed can evoke great resistance. Of course, grown-ups not so disposed, by virtue of personal reasoning, expert knowledge, skills possessed, or resources lacked, can marshal even greater resistance, or so it can seem when their reasoning is concealed.

Hierarchical relationships contrast with the way cooperating teammates and business partners with a common goal would interact if they were out to capitalize on each person’s distinctive attributes and resources. By hierarchical relationships, we’re talking most centrally about boss/subordinate interactions, but we’re talking about other nonparity relationships as well. We’re also talking about relationships contracting firms have with their suppliers, relationships between joint venture partners with unequal resources, and relationships firms have with independent contractors such as specialty lawyers, auditors, consultants, and travel agents. In every instance, when a relationship is engaged hierarchically, the company loses out. Thus, hierarchical thinking extrapolated to a business situation poses a burning-ember threat to any relationship that’s combustible.

14

In this book we group the organization negatives associated with hierarchical relationships into five categories: warped communication, corrupt internal politics, illusionary teamwork, personal dispiriting, and pass-the-buck accountability. When it comes to people solving business problems and running organizations effectively, each of these negative dynamics represent significant obstacles to overcome.

We think these negatives are so blatant and onerous that as organization doctors called in to fix ailing relationships, we’re constantly on the lookout for alternatives. We seek alternatives to the social conditioning that causes people to be intimidated by rank and stature to the point that they don’t clearly say what they think or become self-inflated by their hierarchical stature to the point that they don’t earnestly seek alternative views. And the changes had better come before too many more top-level executives and their companies get done in by what lower-level people think but don’t dare say out loud and by what upper-level people hear but choose to overlook.

TWO-SIDED ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERING IS THE ALTERNATIVE

Lately we’ve been using the term two-sided accountability partnering as the alternative to hierarchical relationships. It conveys the image of goodwill reciprocity leading to straightforward communications, aboveboard politics, authentic teamwork, esprit de corps, and the type of accountability that produces high-quality corporate results. Two-sided cues people to consider a reciprocal obligation to help one another in the pursuit of company goals. Accountability cues people to constrain self-interested pursuits that others might see coming at their expense. Partnering indicates a mutuality of interests that sets the stage for effective dialogue and interactive problem solving.

15

Two-sided accountability partnering contrasts with hierarchical relationships such as boss and subordinate, executive and manager, leader and follower, line and staff, strategist and operative, insider and outsider, central and peripheral, in the know and out of the flow, and so forth, which signal the dominance and superiority of viewpoints and ideas at the top. Two-sided accountability partnering communicates the image of collaborative action and people operating as real teammates—fully expressing themselves, filling in for one another, and jointly standing accountable for outcomes that benefit the enterprise as a whole.

As a means of illustrating the problems that accompany hierarchical relationships and the need for two-sided accountability, consider three revealing case studies. The first depicts the hierarchy trap that makes real teamwork impossible. It shows the ease with which hierarchical relationships get stuck in the logic of command-and-control and the teamwork difficulties that result. The second shows how hierarchical relationships warp communication and lead to a corrupt and manipulative brand of internal politics that can devastate an individual’s career. The third displays the core dishonesty that shadows all hierarchical relationships and the ease with which positively motivated people become dispirited and self-delude. Taken together, the three cases begin our mapping of the destructive dynamics inevitable in hierarchical relationships and set the stage for appreciating the alternative logic that generates the remedies you’ll be reading about in this book.

16

CASE 1

The Hierarchy Trap Leads to Illusionary Teamwork and Ineffective Problem Solving

Here’s a case depicting a commonplace business problem that is almost always addressed with hierarchy, seldom with a satisfactory solution. It’s a situation we encounter over and over again and is graphically illustrated in a recent experience where we observed a group of top-level executives of a prominent environmental cleanup company. They had invited us to watch them perform their allegedly acclaimed team approach to program oversight and project management.

When we entered the meeting, the project manager was explaining his difficulties with the laboratory contracted to analyze the contamination level that remained in the ground their company was cleaning up. Provocatively he said, “Despite the fact that our company owns Analystat, we’ve reached the point where we have to fire them and bring in a lab that performs to schedule. We’ve got to,” he grimaced. “We’re in danger of losing money and, more importantly, losing the confidence of an established client.” He recounted the details.

“About a month ago we saw ourselves falling behind schedule. Anticipating upset, we called our client with a ‘head’s up.’ We told him the lab was falling behind but not to worry, because they had given us assurances that they would shortly be on track. We offered to make up for lost time by working overtime at our own expense. At that point I had already called my counterpart at Analystat who assured me they’d be picking up the slack. I told him, ‘You’d better.’ Then I explained that overtime was now involved and we’d be billing them our extra costs.

“A week later it was clear the lab still wasn’t processing our volume, so I took up matters with my boss Al. Al told me to ‘ratchet up the pressure,’ which I did by placing a call to my counterpart’s director. The director said he was aware of the situation and assured me that the lab would be back on schedule within two weeks, which was fine with me. That would leave sufficient time to recover. But ten days later it appeared they still weren’t gaining ground, so I went to Al, and he called that director. Unfortunately, another week has gone by, and to me it seems they are no closer to meeting their commitments than they were a month ago. That’s how I concluded we should find another lab. Biting this bullet may help us earn back some of the credibility we’ve lost.”

17

The project manager’s account of Analystat’s nonperformance seemed to anger just about everyone in the room. Suddenly, a red-in-the-face executive stood up and bolted swiftly toward the door announcing that he was leaving to call Analystat’s president. He said, “I’m on their board. If these people intend to keep their jobs, they’d better start living up to their commitments.” Everyone seemed relieved, as if suddenly they had their solution.

Half an hour later, our hosts asked for our impressions. Fascinated by the bankrupt logic we saw them using, we welcomed the opportunity to comment. On the other hand, we understood. Their response was driven by conventional hierarchical “wisdom.”

We began by asking whether anyone saw alternatives to the way the project and program managers were handling their subcontractor problem. And for spice, we added, “… and the way Joe just dealt with Analystat’s president?” No one had much to offer. Then we asked what people saw as the methodology underlying their attempts to solve the Analystat problem. Rhetorically, we offered that we saw it as problem solving through the use of a hierarchical relationship. We added that it seemed their backup methodology, for use when hierarchy failed, was the invocation of a more intimidating hierarchical relationship. We finished by declaring our belief that such a methodology can only lead to adversarial, close-minded, blaming relationships, introducing the irony of their acting adversarial with a business unit whose financial performance fell to the same bottom line as theirs.

18

Having their attention, we asked, “How might you proceed if you substituted a ‘we can’t succeed unless you succeed’ methodology for hierarchical muscle? What if you thought of Analystat as an operation you wanted to see make money and succeed, and dealt with their managers as if they were members of your own project team? Then their problems would be your problems, which clearly they are, for as you’ve been discussing, falling behind schedule is creating additional costs and negatively impacting your relationship with the client.”

Our suggestion met with agreement, but it was obvious that, in the face of such a business betrayal, no one could envision what a nonhierarchical approach would entail. We offered, “If we thought of them as part of our team and the cause of our nonperformance, we’d be running to their facility asking to eyeball their problems and offering help in solving them. We’d want to see firsthand what they were facing, and we’d be willing to consider taking just about any action that might assist in correcting their nonperformance. For the moment we’d forget about organizational boundaries and absorb whatever costs emerged. Only after the problems were solved would we take time to sort out damages, culpability, and cross-charges. That would also be the time to examine for incompetence and to assess what’s needed to avoid a “next time.”

Our comments put the project manager on the defensive. He said, “What if the people at Analystat won’t show us their problems?”

We responded, “Without knowing your relationship with them or the form their resistance might take, it’s difficult to specify exactly how you might proceed. We’d want to say something like ‘Hey! We’re in this thing together and, speaking as your business partner, your denying us access is not OK. We can’t succeed without you, so the problem isn’t yours alone. Our partnership requires that you let us in. You certainly need our understanding, and, who knows, together we might stumble on a remedy. You can’t be territorial when the corporation’s profits and our relationship with a valued client are on the line.’”

19

While the others seemed to be enjoying the impromptu class, we were concerned that it was taking place at the project manager’s expense. So we backed off without mentioning the possibility, obscured by the structure of the question, that the lab manager might actually welcome his viewing their problems and his help in solving them. Glancing around the room, we thought almost everyone else understood. We felt the project manager eventually would, too, but first he had to get past his embarrassment. He was feeling “one down,” a hierarchical condition that blocks open-minded listening.

CASE 2

Hierarchical Relationships Lead to Warped Communication and Corrupt Internal Politics

Our next case highlights the political maneuvering, deception, and misuse of human resources that, in our experience, too often accompany hierarchical relationships. It shows that calling a relationship a “team effort” or a “business partnership” doesn’t necessarily make it one. Our example centers on the relationship between a CEO named Bill and his hand picked choice to head operations, Lee. From the beginning, Bill had referred to Lee as his “business partner.” Now if ever a situation could have been staged for a partnering relationship, this one was a natural. As you read along, note how words like teamwork and partnering were used to camouflage destructively competitive, hierarchical maneuvering. As is usually the case when hierarchical levels conflict, there’s a loser and a bigger loser, the latter inevitably being the company.

Bill was the successor CEO to an ...